It's been done, but not by me: FREE WILL

[Prometheus_ash]

An Argument in defense of Hard Determinism.

1. All events have causes
2. Our actions are events.
3. all caused events are determined by the past
____________________________
4. Our actions are determined by the past
5. If our actions are determined by the past, then we have no power to act other than we do indeed act.
_______________________________
6. We have no power to act other than we do indeed act.
7. If we have no power to act other than we do indeed act, then we have no free will.
_________________________________
Conclusion: We have no free will.

It's all fairly straightforward and basic, and that, I think, is the strength of this argument. For those of you that are not determinist, this should give you something to push against.

The only point which I see as contendable is number one.IN order for this to be a solid claim, it must be true. In order for this to be the case, there must not be uncaused events. The obviouse solution would seem to be to go to quantam mechanics, but I would advise against this unless 1)You are an expert in that field and have a good understanding of it, as misconceptioons abound amoung the layman. Also, it is important to note that many of the things within the nature of quantum mechanics do have a cause (even the seemingly "causeless" kind, just a cause that is different than we might expect.

What do you think?

 

[TeddyKGB]

I think "quantum mechanics contains a possible defeater for premise 1 but you can't use it because you don't understand it" is a lousy pre-emptive counterargument.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

I think "quantum mechanics contains a possible defeater for premise 1 but you can't use it because you don't understand it" is a lousy pre-emptive counterargument.

It's more of a cautionairy thing:"Don't make use of it unless you actually have some formal understanding fo the field."

Quantum mechanics is hideiously complex, and it is something that I believe should not be lightly refered to without a great understanding of the field.

Besides, I would rather keep things philisophical

 

[Merlin]

We can learn and make new decisions, ones not based on the past.

 

[TeddyKGB]

We can learn and make new decisions, ones not based on the past.

Erm... if we are learning, are we not learning from the past?

 

[saltoearth]

I think you have a great thread topic going teddy and I like the reasoning you have employed. I stopped believing in freewill for about 2 years now, its been a rough road, people think I'm either stupid or crazy, sometimes both. Almost all theological arguements come down to this overwelmingly important question, "can man make a choice which has not be directly or indirectly CAUSED by some other influence?". Most individuals never think about causes, they are looking only at the effects. I have said before and will say again, GOD IS THE GREAT CAUSE. To bring in scriptural evidence I cite

Rom 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
Rom 11:35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen.

It seem though that no matter how much evidence the bible provides for this understanding of reality I don't seem to find many takers. Perhaps it is easier to live in a world where you can MAKE THINGS HAPPEN and you are not being INFLUENCED by your enviroment and surroundings. I have enjoyed a much higher level of freedom however by this new understanding. Because I know that all effects begin with a cause I have can not judge others as I did in the past.

One of the big pieces to this puzzle which I have come to understand (through the grace of God, my intellect is not that great) is that all the UNIVERSE (everything) is governed by laws. God is the LAW GIVER. To give a simple example, the LAW of GRAVITY governs material things regardless or our opinion about it. The law is blind to our feelings, opinions or ignorance. This concept fits in perfectly with the message of the bible also.

One of the greatest revelations on this subject I have received is that DIFFERENT LAWS government different entities. The Inner Man, The Christ, ect is governed by SPIRITUAL LAWS, The Adamic Man, The Carnal Man, ect is governed by NATURAL LAWS (law of Moses, laws of physics ect).

Here is the big one that most people really thing that I am crazy.

GOD DOES NOT HAVE A FREEWILL!

As bold as this statement appears it can be very easily proven.
God is governed by HIS NATURE (as is man which is a vast topic in and of itself) this nature is LOVE (God IS love). Once this is established (most Christian will promptly agree) I ask:

CAN GOD HATE?
CAN GOD LIE?

If these are answered in the affirmative then GOD IS NOT LOVE which contradicts the first agreed principle. Also the scriptures state that GOD CAN NOT LIE. If any of you are wondering why, its because HIS WORD IS TRUTH. All of God's actions are CAUSED by the HIS NATURE which is LOVE. This truth has brough me much peace and understanding over the last year, I am so thankful that my father has shown it to me.

Again thanks for starting this thread teddy, this topic is a very very large one which has far reaching implications.

IN CHRIST,

Wesley

 

[Mandevar]

Wow I think that went right over my head... but I did notice "3. all caused events are determined by the past"

I would have to disagree? can I do that haha? To think of that seems to think that there would have to be a beginning, but I see the universe as being infinite and having no starting place, therefore there was no past, it just always was and is. So how could the first "event" be determined by the past. It was determined by the universe always being there? That conflicts with my beliefs, but that just is my belief and I have no scientific backing/evidence.

But to say "we have no free will"? Whats the point? I can do whatever I please (=free will), who cares if it was determined by the past (experience)? I guess I believe that everything was caused by an event determined by the past (sounds like a duh to me)... that makes me a determinist? But then "there must not be uncaused events"?

:o haha sorry, I'm kinda lost... never heard of this before.

 

[inchristalone221]

I agree that there is no such thing as free will, but I am not a "hard determinist." I am a compatibilist in that I think we are responsible for the choices we freely make, but that our free decisions are pre-determined by a myriad of factors.

Now think about this:

1. All effects are determined by their causes.
2. All causes are determined by the first cause (God).
----------------------------------------------------
3. All effects are determined by God.

Quite the argument for total sovereignty (+1 for reformed nutcases like me).

In HIM we live and move and have our being.
--the apostle Paul speaking to an unregenerate audience about the power and sovereignty of God

 

[CSMR]

An Argument in defense of Hard Determinism.

1. All events have causes
2. Our actions are events.
3. all caused events are determined by the past
____________________________
4. Our actions are determined by the past
5. If our actions are determined by the past, then we have no power to act other than we do indeed act.
_______________________________
6. We have no power to act other than we do indeed act.
7. If we have no power to act other than we do indeed act, then we have no free will.
_________________________________
Conclusion: We have no free will.

Somewhat indeterminate language here. 6 should be eliminated; either it is obviously false (if it means we have no freedom to choose) or it makes no progress from its premise. Also you need to say what a cause is.

I do not believe in natural determinism although I was tempted for a while. I think it depends on showing that such things as objective causes exist, whereas I do not think causation can be explained objectively, only within the context of an empirical theory.

 

[Corran]

I agree that there is no such thing as free will, but I am not a "hard determinist." I am a compatibilist in that I think we are responsible for the choices we freely make, but that our free decisions are pre-determined by a myriad of factors.

Now think about this:

1. All effects are determined by their causes.
2. All causes are determined by the first cause (God).
----------------------------------------------------
3. All effects are determined by God.

Quite the argument for total sovereignty (+1 for reformed nutcases like me).

In HIM we live and move and have our being.
--the apostle Paul speaking to an unregenerate audience about the power and sovereignty of God

Wouldnt that mean we have no control over whether or not we end up in hell?

 

[b4uris]

I am a compatibilist in that I think we are responsible for the choices we freely make, but that our free decisions are pre-determined by a myriad of factors.

How are those decisions free then?

 

[inchristalone221]

You must recall that the idea of free will must be defined in human terms, as it is a human invention. We freely make choices, from the human side of things. One cannot deny the experience of choice. The truth from the divine side is that our choices were "ordained before the foundation of the world." Ultimately, free will is illusory.

 

[TeddyKGB]

You must recall that the idea of free will must be defined in human terms, as it is a human invention. We freely make choices, from the human side of things. One cannot deny the experience of choice. The truth from the divine side is that our choices were "ordained before the foundation of the world." Ultimately, free will is illusory.

Then it seems to follow that we cannot be responsible for choices. Right?

 

[inchristalone221]

Then it seems to follow that we cannot be responsible for choices. Right?

My question be "why not?" We are held responsible for our actions in this world because whether or not we are the ultimate cause, we are still the personal cause.

 

[TeddyKGB]

My question be "why not?" We are held responsible for our actions in this world because whether or not we are the ultimate cause, we are still the personal cause.

I am not familiar with "personal cause" nor with why it confers responsibility.

 

[AphraB]

My question be "why not?" We are held responsible for our actions in this world because whether or not we are the ultimate cause, we are still the personal cause.

That sounds rather like a divine Catch 22. The deity has pre-determined everything yet we are held responsible for the choices we make?

I put Epicurus to you.

[font=&quot]Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
[/font] [font=&quot]Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
[/font][font=&quot]Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
[/font]Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

 

[elman]

An Argument in defense of Hard Determinism.

1. All events have causes
2. Our actions are events.
3. all caused events are determined by the past
____________________________
4. Our actions are determined by the past
5. If our actions are determined by the past, then we have no power to act other than we do indeed act.
_______________________________
6. We have no power to act other than we do indeed act.
7. If we have no power to act other than we do indeed act, then we have no free will.
_________________________________
Conclusion: We have no free will.

It's all fairly straightforward and basic, and that, I think, is the strength of this argument. For those of you that are not determinist, this should give you something to push against.

The only point which I see as contendable is number one.IN order for this to be a solid claim, it must be true. In order for this to be the case, there must not be uncaused events. The obviouse solution would seem to be to go to quantam mechanics, but I would advise against this unless 1)You are an expert in that field and have a good understanding of it, as misconceptioons abound amoung the layman. Also, it is important to note that many of the things within the nature of quantum mechanics do have a cause (even the seemingly "causeless" kind, just a cause that is different than we might expect.

What do you think?

An event can be caused by your choice to make it happen. All events are not caused by the past. We have free will or at least the ability to make choices.l

 

[inchristalone221]

[font=&quot]Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
[/font] [font=&quot]Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
[/font][font=&quot]Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
[/font]Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Paul's Answer:

Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

Another thought:

Do you really wish for God to judge evil? If God judged every single evil deed ever commited right now, what situation would you find yourself in? So perhaps His tolerance is rooted in His benevolence.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

I saw a few responces that I wanted to reply to. See below:

Wow I think that went right over my head... but I did notice "3. all caused events are determined by the past"

I would have to disagree? can I do that haha? To think of that seems to think that there would have to be a beginning, but I see the universe as being infinite and having no starting place, therefore there was no past, it just always was and is. So how could the first "event" be determined by the past. It was determined by the universe always being there? That conflicts with my beliefs, but that just is my belief and I have no scientific backing/evidence.

But to say "we have no free will"? Whats the point? I can do whatever I please (=free will), who cares if it was determined by the past (experience)? I guess I believe that everything was caused by an event determined by the past (sounds like a duh to me)... that makes me a determinist? But then "there must not be uncaused events"?

:o haha sorry, I'm kinda lost... never heard of this before.

The importance of this idea is that if indeed we have no free will, and people do not act in a manner of their own choosing, then we cannot rightfully make any moral judgements, since all traditional moral theories rely upon the idea that mankind freely chooses their actions.

One of the problems here, which you hit upon, is that this argument does create a causal chain, suggesting that the universe is iether itself uncaused, or otherwise has no cause and no begining.

If you believe that "everything was caused by an event determined by the past" then you would be a determinist. That statement (and the belief behind it) imply at least a weak determinism.

I agree that there is no such thing as free will, but I am not a "hard determinist." I am a compatibilist in that I think we are responsible for the choices we freely make, but that our free decisions are pre-determined by a myriad of factors.

Now think about this:

1. All effects are determined by their causes.
2. All causes are determined by the first cause (God).
----------------------------------------------------
3. All effects are determined by God.

Quite the argument for total sovereignty (+1 for reformed nutcases like me).

In HIM we live and move and have our being.
--the apostle Paul speaking to an unregenerate audience about the power and sovereignty of God

You need to suggest reasons for 2. I would agrue that this claim is unfounded, making your argument less solid.

An event can be caused by your choice to make it happen. All events are not caused by the past. We have free will or at least the ability to make choices.l

What influences your choice? What prompts it?
Your choices are (according to this agrument) but things determined, though not strictly by one event but possibly by a whole host of events, many of which you might not be conciously aware of acting under.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

Somewhat indeterminate language here. 6 should be eliminated; either it is obviously false (if it means we have no freedom to choose) or it makes no progress from its premise. Also you need to say what a cause is.

I do not believe in natural determinism although I was tempted for a while. I think it depends on showing that such things as objective causes exist, whereas I do not think causation can be explained objectively, only within the context of an empirical theory.

Combatalism is illogical.

We are either wholy free, or wholy determined. If we are even a little bit determined, or determined probabilistically, then we are still determined and not free.

I included six as a re-statement, and concluscion. It helps bind the argument together and helps with logical rigiour. The phrasing of an argument, in some ways, of course a subjective thing though, and others will have different preferences.